<p>
</p>
<p>The New Yorker usually supports the liberal point of view so I was surprised to see this cover of Obama. Could this be New York’s revenge for Hillary Clinton not having been nominated? </p>
<p>Note the “terrorist fist bump”. I wonder what that means?</p>
<p>Unbelieveable.</p>
<p>And the flag in the fire, and a framed picture of Bin Laden over the fireplace.</p>
<p>I wish I had a New Yorker subscription so I could cancel it.</p>
<p>Sure looks like satire to me, and I’ve subscribed to NY-er for 25 years.</p>
<p>I wonder if they also have a McCain cover, and what it might show.</p>
<p>Edited to add: I just looked at the cover, and, based on past experience of the magazine, it’s meant to be satirical. However, what it shows is that the editors of the New Yorker are out of touch with much of America if they think it’s obvious to all that the cover is satirical. While they obviously think that it’s ridiculous to believe that Obama is a Muslim, etc. etc., in fact, too many people DO believe this stuff.</p>
<p>It is a satire. </p>
<p>I totally agree with the article, Obama is no different from a typical calculating, and dishonest politician. I have done an extensive research on Obama, and he is not a different kind of politician (the narrative being spread by his media choir).</p>
<p>I think it will help to read the article before condemning the cover.</p>
<p>Aftering hearing women at a “Latinas for McCain” event on NPR insist that Obama was Muslim and changed his religion, even after being told that he had NEVER been Muslim (not that there’s anything wrong with that!), I think there will be far too many people that will see the cover and think it’s truth not satire.
And I can’t think of a single noncalculating politition. No other way in this country to get office, sadly.</p>
<p>I am shocked since the NYer is liberal…they just hit him in his vulnerable spot.</p>
<p>I agree with Tega about Obama is no different than any politician…he keeps touting change, but he plays the political game.</p>
<p>How is he going to change the way politics are played in DC if he is playing the game?</p>
<p>This is what I call a blue on blue crime.</p>
<p>David Renick for NYer will fall into the same cat as the editor for Golf Digest approving the noose for Tiger.</p>
<p>This is going to be the most controversial cover since the one with the Hasidic Jew kissing a Black woman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Much of America does not read The New Yorker or understand satire.</p>
<p>“However, what it shows is that the editors of the New Yorker are out of touch with much of America if they think it’s obvious to all that the cover is satirical.”</p>
<p>The New Yorker does not cater to most Americans. The New Yorker’s target audience is well educated and in-the-know in terms of politics. The majority of their audience should easily recognize this cover as satirical.</p>
<p>
Art Spiegelman’s 1999 cover on the Amadou Diallo killing (“41 shots 10 cents”) was very controversial.</p>
<p>By Richard Prince on the Institute for Journalism Education’s web site.</p>
<p>“The New Yorker magazine is igniting a firestorm with a cover this week that collects, in a caricature, the right-wing stereotypes about Sen. Barack Obama.
The presumptive Democratic nominee is in Muslim garb giving a fist-bump to his wife, Michelle, who is shown wearing an Afro and a machine gun. An American flag burns in the fireplace, and a photo of Osama bin Laden is on the wall.
Editor David Remick defended the cover, saying, “Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd.”
But Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, “Most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”
Tucker Bounds, spokesman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican nominee, said, “We completely agree with the Obama campaign,” as Mark Halperin of Time magazine reported on his Web site on politics, “the Page.”
The cover of the July 21 issue, on sale on Monday, is dubbed “The Politics of Fear.” “Artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign,” according to a New Yorker news release issued Sunday…”
[Uproar</a> Over New Yorker Cover | The Maynard Institute](<a href=“http://www.mije.org/richardprince/uproar-over-new-yorker-cover]Uproar”>http://www.mije.org/richardprince/uproar-over-new-yorker-cover)</p>
<p>It’s ridiculous, distasteful, and not the least bit amusing.</p>
<p><a href=“%5Burl=http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060695297-post6.html]#6[/url]”>quote</a> Aftering hearing women at a “Latinas for McCain” event on NPR insist that Obama was Muslim and changed his religion, even after being told that he had NEVER been Muslim…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From Obama’s site [Fight</a> The Smear](<a href=“http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/christian]Fight”>http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/christian):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From The LA Times [“Islam</a> an unknown factor in Obama bid”](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,1,7181735,full.story]"Islam”>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-te.obama16mar16,1,7181735,full.story):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hilarious. Burning the American flag in the fireplace is a nice touch. Reminisicent of Obama’s close friend and political mentor terrorist bomber Bill Ayers in his PR photos stomping on the flag. Great stuff.</p>
<p>What’s the big deal? Did the 1st Amendment get repealed within the last week?</p>
<p>Your reply is contemptuous, interesteddad. Would you find it hilarious if the cover similarly satirized a distorted view of Hillary Clinton? Would you find it apt that the magazine give even more publicity to contemptuous characterizations of her than were already out there, thus lending them more credibility (not less), & slanting the political debate toward the absurd & baseless, rather than toward the rational & commonly understood views she holds? (Somehow I think not.)</p>
<p>What the New Yorker has done is not amusing, nor journalistic, nor responsible, no matter what one’s views.</p>
<p>I am of two minds about that cover. Firstly, it’s a funny send-up of all the caricatures a certain subset of anti-Obama folks – and this was my initial reaction pretty much in its entirety. Secondly, there are people such as some on this board that are too stupid to see the satire in it and wholeheartedly embrace it’s representation as pure observation or straightforward journalism – i.e. that Obama deserves being depicted this way either because the picture is true or, because of his associations, represents some deeper truth. Because of the stupidity factor – or overweaning seriousness on the part of some people – I am not entirely comfortable with the depiction. But then again, I must believe, few people are going to depend on the New Yorker to decide their votes.</p>